Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1204259 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-10 15:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-08-17 17:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
[PATCH v3 05/10] VFIO: platform: add vfio_platform_is_active Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org> - 2015-08-10 15:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 05/10] VFIO: platform: add vfio_platform_is_active Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> - 2015-08-12 21:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 05/10] VFIO: platform: add vfio_platform_is_active Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org> - 2015-08-17 17:50 +0200
| From | Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 15:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH v3 05/10] VFIO: platform: add vfio_platform_is_active |
| Message-ID | <pVVjl-7A8-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
This function returns whether the IRQ is active at irqchip level or
VFIO masked. If either is true, it is considered the IRQ is active.
Currently there is no way to differentiate userspace masked IRQ from
automasked IRQ. There might be false detection of activity. However
it is currently acceptable to have false detection.
Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org>
---
---
drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
index a285384..efaee58 100644
--- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
+++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
@@ -205,6 +205,23 @@ static int vfio_platform_set_automasked(struct vfio_platform_irq *irq,
return 0;
}
+static int vfio_platform_is_active(struct vfio_platform_irq *irq)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+ bool active, masked, outstanding;
+ int ret;
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->lock, flags);
+
+ ret = irq_get_irqchip_state(irq->hwirq, IRQCHIP_STATE_ACTIVE, &active);
+ BUG_ON(ret);
+ masked = irq->masked;
+ outstanding = active || masked;
+
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->lock, flags);
+ return outstanding;
+}
+
static void vfio_platform_irq_bypass_stop(struct irq_bypass_producer *prod)
{
}
--
1.9.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 21:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pWJpM-4w1-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1204259 |
On Mon, 2015-08-10 at 15:20 +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> This function returns whether the IRQ is active at irqchip level or
> VFIO masked. If either is true, it is considered the IRQ is active.
> Currently there is no way to differentiate userspace masked IRQ from
> automasked IRQ. There might be false detection of activity. However
> it is currently acceptable to have false detection.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org>
>
> ---
> ---
> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
> index a285384..efaee58 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
> @@ -205,6 +205,23 @@ static int vfio_platform_set_automasked(struct vfio_platform_irq *irq,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int vfio_platform_is_active(struct vfio_platform_irq *irq)
vfio_platform_irq_is_active()?
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + bool active, masked, outstanding;
> + int ret;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->lock, flags);
> +
> + ret = irq_get_irqchip_state(irq->hwirq, IRQCHIP_STATE_ACTIVE, &active);
> + BUG_ON(ret);
Why can't we propagate this error to the caller and let them decide?
> + masked = irq->masked;
> + outstanding = active || masked;
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->lock, flags);
> + return outstanding;
> +}
> +
> static void vfio_platform_irq_bypass_stop(struct irq_bypass_producer *prod)
> {
> }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 17:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pYuPE-3cv-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1206331 |
On 08/12/2015 08:56 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-08-10 at 15:20 +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
>> This function returns whether the IRQ is active at irqchip level or
>> VFIO masked. If either is true, it is considered the IRQ is active.
>> Currently there is no way to differentiate userspace masked IRQ from
>> automasked IRQ. There might be false detection of activity. However
>> it is currently acceptable to have false detection.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org>
>>
>> ---
>> ---
>> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
>> index a285384..efaee58 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
>> @@ -205,6 +205,23 @@ static int vfio_platform_set_automasked(struct vfio_platform_irq *irq,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int vfio_platform_is_active(struct vfio_platform_irq *irq)
>
> vfio_platform_irq_is_active()?
OK
>
>> +{
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + bool active, masked, outstanding;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + ret = irq_get_irqchip_state(irq->hwirq, IRQCHIP_STATE_ACTIVE, &active);
>> + BUG_ON(ret);
>
> Why can't we propagate this error to the caller and let them decide?
sure
Eric
>
>> + masked = irq->masked;
>> + outstanding = active || masked;
>> +
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->lock, flags);
>> + return outstanding;
>> +}
>> +
>> static void vfio_platform_irq_bypass_stop(struct irq_bypass_producer *prod)
>> {
>> }
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web